"Commissioned" is more accurate than "inspired" for a hell of a lot of those paintings, music and architecture. And many Renaissance artists resented having to create works for the church, but as the church were the guys with all the cash and power there wasn't a lot of choice. But still, that doesn't change the fact that those works are indeed stunning.

I would add to this list the fact that religious institutions gave us the first hospitals and universities and, rather ironically these days, the beginnings of what would become science.

"Commissioned" is more accurate than "inspired" for a hell of a lot of those paintings, music and architecture. And many Renaissance artists resented having to create works for the church, but as the church were the guys with all the cash and power there wasn't a lot of choice. But still, that doesn't change the fact that those works are indeed stunning.

I would add to this list the fact that religious institutions gave us the first hospitals and universities and, rather ironically these days, the beginnings of what would become science.

DID YOU KNOW:

Michaelangelo was basically kidnapped and held against his will for the duration that it took for him to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He didn't want to do it. He wanted nothing to do with the Pope or his project. The Pope had him dragged back and MADE HIM paint it.

So, yeah, 'commissioned' is more accurate than 'inspired' and sometimes 'forced people to produce' is even MORE accurate than that.

"Commissioned" is more accurate than "inspired" for a hell of a lot of those paintings, music and architecture. And many Renaissance artists resented having to create works for the church, but as the church were the guys with all the cash and power there wasn't a lot of choice. But still, that doesn't change the fact that those works are indeed stunning.

I would add to this list the fact that religious institutions gave us the first hospitals and universities and, rather ironically these days, the beginnings of what would become science.

DID YOU KNOW:

Michaelangelo was basically kidnapped and held against his will for the duration that it took for him to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. He didn't want to do it. He wanted nothing to do with the Pope or his project. The Pope had him dragged back and MADE HIM paint it.

So, yeah, 'commissioned' is more accurate than 'inspired' and sometimes 'forced people to produce' is even MORE accurate than that.

The universities were a tad selective. They perpetuated the church's near-monopoly on literacy. (They were not noted for bestowing scholarships on serfs.) As for rudimentary science, it existed despite the church, not because of it.

...yeah, and? That's not inherently because of religion but because religion was the coping mechanism that particular person found most effective when it came to kicking a bad or destructive habit. It's no different than having needlepoint or jogging or kickboxing or writing poetry as a coping mechanism. That has nothing to do with the inherent goodness of any of those things, just that this one happens to work for that specific person.

The religious moral code, flawed as it is, is still better than some of the alternatives. Many people have been driven to become better versions of themselves by religion.

"Everything is part of the Great Plan of a benevolent being" can be more comforting than "Shit happens, the universe doesn't care about you", to some people. And, though it goes against my Deeply Held Principles, there are times when comfort is more important than the truth. Rare times. But still.

I suspect this could be done equally well or better by non-religious institutions, but we work with what we have.

If the good things done in the name of religion can't be attributed to religion, then why should the bad things done in the name of religion be attributed to it?

Well, when the bad things are done as part of a literal following of what a particular religious text says, it's not too far off the mark to attribute such a thing to religion. For example, whipping and/or stoning people for extremely minor 'crimes', or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, or killing someone for daring to work on the Sabbath.

If the good things done in the name of religion can't be attributed to religion, then why should the bad things done in the name of religion be attributed to it?

Well, when the bad things are done as part of a literal following of what a particular religious text says, it's not too far off the mark to attribute such a thing to religion. For example, whipping and/or stoning people for extremely minor 'crimes', or forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker, or killing someone for daring to work on the Sabbath.

True, to an extent, but following a religion doesn't necessitate following every rule or bit of dogma that religion provides. Everyone picks and chooses pieces of their religion, or has pieces of religion picked and chosen for them.

People who adhere dogmatically enough to a religion to do those kinds of things don't count as "good people doing evil things" to me.

Of course, this becomes a problem in situations where people consider their religion's holy book to be the literal word of god, instead of it being man's record of the divine. This is where things like fundamentalism come from (though by far not the only source of it)

As far as I know, I can't think of any place in the Bible or the Torah where it actually claims the entire book is the literal word of God. Then again the thing's so vast that I'm surprised I know anything about it at all. It, like the serpent being the devil, seems like a relatively modern interpretation.

A lot of churches actually use their resources to help take care of the poor. A lot of them, especially in this country, don't ask if the people are Christian or not because it's more important to be helping people than to convert them.

In Muslim countries, similar acts happen, as charity is one of the pillars of Islam. If you don't give to the poor, they are taught, you are not a true Muslim.

Tammy Faye Messner was one of the first people to bring national attention to the AIDS epidemic of the 80's. She'd bring these people in, junkies and gays, and she'd ask people to help them. Sometimes with prayer, yes, but also to help get them medical care and to try to find a cure. She did this because her understanding of Christianity meant you were supposed to help people, whether or not they were sinners. She might not have approved of their lifestyles, but they needed help, and by God, she was going to help them as best she could.

Have these people also done bad things, often in the name of the same religion? Sure. A lot of the same churches have campaigned against gay marriage. Many Muslims support violence against those they view as heretics. Tammy Faye was, if not directly involved, at least complicit with her husband's mismanagement of Church funds. But they also did some good things for their religions.

The comfort value of a belief is a shaky prop at best. And "They've also done some good" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I often wonder where we'd be if all the human energy, ingenuity and dedication devoted to religion throughout the ages had been directed toward human betterment.

The comfort value of a belief is a shaky prop at best. And "They've also done some good" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I often wonder where we'd be if all the human energy, ingenuity and dedication devoted to religion throughout the ages had been directed toward human betterment.

The comfort value of a belief is a shaky prop at best. And "They've also done some good" is hardly a ringing endorsement. I often wonder where we'd be if all the human energy, ingenuity and dedication devoted to religion throughout the ages had been directed toward human betterment.

Once my mom asked me why I didn't become religious, since I "really seem like the kind of person who wanted to fix the world."

My answer was that religious people aren't inherently better at fixing the world than non-religious people; that's up to the individual. It's not that religious people are more moral than others, it's just that they've got better PR.

An interesting conclusion. Would you mind at all sharing what brought you to that?

Need I remind you of the countless people who were inspired to improve themselves through religion? Need I remind you that MLK was a reverend, that Mr. Rogers was a minister? Need I remind you of the nuns who have fought for justice and quality of life?

Need I remind you of the countless people who were inspired to improve themselves through religion? Need I remind you that MLK was a reverend, that Mr. Rogers was a minister? Need I remind you of the nuns who have fought for justice and quality of life?

Many great and wonderful people have been religious. Many terrible people have been religious. Many MANY morally mediocre people have been religious. I'm sure the same can be said about atheists (except with fewer examples in each category due to atheism being a relatively recent phenomenon).

I'm not convinced most of those people wouldn't have done those wonderful (or terrible) things without religion, and I see no reason to believe that religious people do great things in greater proportion than atheists.

An interesting conclusion. Would you mind at all sharing what brought you to that?

Need I remind you of the countless people who were inspired to improve themselves through religion? Need I remind you that MLK was a reverend, that Mr. Rogers was a minister? Need I remind you of the nuns who have fought for justice and quality of life?

Like John said, nice people will be nice without religion and terrible people would likewise also be terrible WITH it. Religiosity typically has little to do with a person's general moral character. It's far, far more likely that people who want to teach and inspire others--for better or for worse, good and bad--are going to turn to a big community organization that will attract lots of people who are willing to listen AND grants the speaker some measure of... I guess status or respect. Which, for much of history, were almost always churches, temples, synagogues, and the like and being a reverend, rabbi, or other religious figure.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide some solid evidence that it is religion--and religion alone--that makes some people better themselves or makes people good people.

An interesting conclusion. Would you mind at all sharing what brought you to that?

Need I remind you of the countless people who were inspired to improve themselves through religion? Need I remind you that MLK was a reverend, that Mr. Rogers was a minister? Need I remind you of the nuns who have fought for justice and quality of life?

Like John said, nice people will be nice without religion and terrible people would likewise also be terrible WITH it. Religiosity typically has little to do with a person's general moral character. It's far, far more likely that people who want to teach and inspire others--for better or for worse, good and bad--are going to turn to a big community organization that will attract lots of people who are willing to listen AND grants the speaker some measure of... I guess status or respect. Which, for much of history, were almost always churches, temples, synagogues, and the like and being a reverend, rabbi, or other religious figure.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide some solid evidence that it is religion--and religion alone--that makes some people better themselves or makes people good people.

How about the Quakers? I could count all the good things they've done, but it'll take all day.

What objectively good, moral things did the Quakers do that could NOT have been done by an atheist? Name ANYTHING that is objectively moral that a theist can say or do that an atheist cannot. Hitchens posed this challenge and offered $10,000 to anybody who could do this. Nobody could. In the end, it just doesn't seem to be possible. You just CAN'T prove that religion makes people good. Similarly, as anti-theist as I am, I concede that it doesn't TURN people bad. People are good or bad alongside being religious or not. Religious beliefs don't actually MAKE you a good person--or a bad one. Scripture is a wonderful tool and is so arcane and ambiguous that you can find support for nearly any argument if you choose to interpret or exploit it that way.

Religion can certainly be used to persuade or manipulate people to adopting certain beliefs or ideals, but so can other philosophies in the right hands. It's not a power religion itself has, but rather the way it's being used and the people it's being used ON.

Even if it takes all day, at this point I just want to know what you think religion has caused people to say and do that's not only objectively good, but also something unique to religion.

What objectively good, moral things did the Quakers do that could NOT have been done by an atheist? Name ANYTHING that is objectively moral that a theist can say or do that an atheist cannot. Hitchens posed this challenge and offered $10,000 to anybody who could do this. Nobody could. In the end, it just doesn't seem to be possible. You just CAN'T prove that religion makes people good. Similarly, as anti-theist as I am, I concede that it doesn't TURN people bad. People are good or bad alongside being religious or not. Religious beliefs don't actually MAKE you a good person--or a bad one. Scripture is a wonderful tool and is so arcane and ambiguous that you can find support for nearly any argument if you choose to interpret or exploit it that way.

Religion can certainly be used to persuade or manipulate people to adopting certain beliefs or ideals, but so can other philosophies in the right hands. It's not a power religion itself has, but rather the way it's being used and the people it's being used ON.

Even if it takes all day, at this point I just want to know what you think religion has caused people to say and do that's not only objectively good, but also something unique to religion.

Why does it have to be unique to religion? Is anyone here trying to prove that religion makes people better than atheism? I thought that the topic was just about how for some people religion is a force for good. That it can inspire people to greatness. This does not mean that it would be the only thing to do so, some people have been inspired to do nice things due to political ideology and some people are just nice people who do good things wether or not they have a religious teachings telling them to do good.

I mean if you believe in karma or something similar (what is that wiccan thing called in english? rule of three?) teaching you that doing good things will benefit you as well it might inspire you to do good.

Certainly you will find people who claim that they are "better" than others because of their faith or lack of faith but I don't see much of that on these forums.

This topic is called "Good Things Religion has Done." Not "Good Things ONLY Religion has done." All this stuff, saying things like "Name one thing that a religious person could do that an atheist couldn't" is just red herring stuff.

And yet many of these same anti-theists who point this out will turn around and point out all the bad things religious people have done, and use that as evidence that "religion is bad." It's hypocritical and an insult to logical thinking. Not saying you're doing this, but still.

It feels like you're trying to define the parameters very specifically. I don't like that.

I don't think the point of this thread is to argue that religion is superior to atheism. The point is to demonstrate where religious individuals or ideologies have contributed something positive to the world, instead of always viewing it through the lens of its old rape-pillage-destroy mentality.

Need I remind you of the countless people who were inspired to improve themselves through religion? Need I remind you that MLK was a reverend, that Mr. Rogers was a minister? Need I remind you of the nuns who have fought for justice and quality of life?

So you are saying religion can be an inspiration for good. Well, yes. That is true. Simplistic, but true. But I don't think it's fair to say that religion is intrinsically good. Any more than it's fair to say it's intrinsically bad. You and I can sit here all day playing the naming religious examples, good and bad. You say MLK, I'll counter with Phelps. You bring up Mr. Rogers. I'll avoid the obvious Mr. Rogers and instead go with Eric Rudolph. You said the nuns who faught for justice and equality of life. Since they weren't named, I'll follow in kind by saying the puritans who banished suspected witches both in the 1600s and a lot more recently in Africa. Religion has been the excuse for good as well as bad. You say religion and human betterment go hand in hand. I'd counter and say knowlegde and human betterment go hand in hand a lot better than religion.

And what objectively bad things done by religious people couldn't be done by atheists?

Just to rise the challenge here

Kill people in the name of their god.

Anyway, religion doesn't accomplish much, people accomplish plenty. When you're dealing with a group that figures anything involved in religion is contained completely within the heads of it's followers(such as a fair chunk of fstdt) you're going to meet some resistance in crediting it with anything. Ultimately in my view it's still the person who did it, and religion is only a small part of why. Typically.

I don't remember reading anything reliable that indicated that Stalin and Mao specifically killed people for the glory of atheism.

No, but they did persecute and kill people for being religious because they felt that religion was a threat to their officially atheist state. Which isn't to say that Stalin used the Church when it suited him, but Mao was much more virulently anti-religious. One of the "Four Olds" that the Cultural Revolution meant to overthrow, for instance, was religion and superstition. It was generally a reaction to what they perceived as "oppressive to the working class" and "brought in by foreign influence," but it's intellectually dishonest to discount what happened there.

Ah, yes, the go-to response for people who don't have a rebuttal to a statement, but refuse to admit they're wrong.

If you've been paying attention to my posts earlier in the thread, I do accept that religion has helped some people.

But there were also cases when people were being persecuted when they didn't really do anything to help out of fear of being rejected by the people. For instance, the Vatican signed an agreement with Hitler early in WWII. Or, alternatively, the churches were the ones doing the persecuting themselves.

As for a good example of religion doing something positive, consider the Quakers' involvement in the abolitionist movement in America.

I never heard of the 72 virgins being the result of a mistranslation. I did find out from a Muslim-born (but no longer practicing) classmate from my college years that Muslim paradise is different for men and women. Men get virgins to boink, women apparently get their own grand house, sometimes also land and servants. Kinda telling of the cultural beliefs about what matters to men and women based on that--men wanna get their dicks wet, women just want to keep house.

@Dynamic Dragon: Can you expand on that? Intuitively, one would think that a law that is dictated and enforced by an omnipotent deity is not a power unto itself.

Basically, the idea is that the Ten Commandments are a force in themselves, and no government is needed to enforce them. Hence, the Hebrews didn't have kings until the Philistines came along. Instead, they had judges, people selected to enforce God's laws.

@Dynamic Dragon: Can you expand on that? Intuitively, one would think that a law that is dictated and enforced by an omnipotent deity is not a power unto itself.

Basically, the idea is that the Ten Commandments are a force in themselves, and no government is needed to enforce them. Hence, the Hebrews didn't have kings until the Philistines came along. Instead, they had judges, people selected to enforce God's laws.

Yeah, the Hebrews saw a king more as a leader of their military than as an enforcer of laws.

@Dynamic Dragon: Can you expand on that? Intuitively, one would think that a law that is dictated and enforced by an omnipotent deity is not a power unto itself.

Basically, the idea is that the Ten Commandments are a force in themselves, and no government is needed to enforce them. Hence, the Hebrews didn't have kings until the Philistines came along. Instead, they had judges, people selected to enforce God's laws.

I'm not sure it's better to have your laws dictated by dead religious leaders rather than living political leaders. Not sure it's necessarily worse, either.

Inasfar as religion goes, as well as people, I have a maxim: I don't care about what people believe, I care about what they do.

There are religious organizations that feed the hungry and provide medical care. Provided they don't reject people of other faiths or use this as a means of proselytization, this is fine, because otherwise these people would be worse off. There's tangible good.

People who fight for the rights of others and do real work to help people are good, no matter what their religion.

People who fight to oppress others and sit there and do nothing when people are in need are assholes, no matter what their religion.

Inasfar as religion goes, as well as people, I have a maxim: I don't care about what people believe, I care about what they do.

There are religious organizations that feed the hungry and provide medical care. Provided they don't reject people of other faiths or use this as a means of proselytization, this is fine, because otherwise these people would be worse off. There's tangible good.

People who fight for the rights of others and do real work to help people are good, no matter what their religion.

People who fight to oppress others and sit there and do nothing when people are in need are assholes, no matter what their religion.

Inasfar as religion goes, as well as people, I have a maxim: I don't care about what people believe, I care about what they do.

There are religious organizations that feed the hungry and provide medical care. Provided they don't reject people of other faiths or use this as a means of proselytization, this is fine, because otherwise these people would be worse off. There's tangible good.

People who fight for the rights of others and do real work to help people are good, no matter what their religion.

People who fight to oppress others and sit there and do nothing when people are in need are assholes, no matter what their religion.

I think you will find a good portion of the forums to be in agreement.

If you're going to call ironbite an ass just make a thread for him, I have a 'Castration' picture I've been considering posting for a while now. It's less back bitey when someone's name is in the title and they at least realize they should be defending themselves. Still not much of a way to argue, but it beats thread jacking.

Religion as a whole...sucks and hasn't done much for humanity. Religion in it's component parts on the other hand has done some wonderful and terrible things for humanity.

Ironbite-which in and of itself isn't a bad thing but hey...look where we are.

Stop with the anti-theism please. Or do you want me to create another "FSTDT Members Behaving Badly" thread?

Well, I'm just going to chime in and agree with Ironbite. What we have seen historically is that good deeds are done both with and without religion. It would be hard to quantify this, but clearly religious faith isn't necessary for extraordinary feats of generosity.

On the other hand, an interesting book discusses religion in part. The book is called "The Authoritarians" and it shows that, statistically speaking, religious people are more likely to be racists, bigots, and other nasty things. They are more likely to see the world as "Us vs. them" directly due to their upbringing telling them that they are of X faith and others are damned" They are more likely to judge others harshly and more likely to "punish" those see fit (be it legally or illegaly). Religious types are more likely to blindly follow their leaders, to the point of killing others. They are more likely to create posses to seek mob justice. Finally, they are more likely to elect leaders who are inept, corrupt, selfish, and inhumane. Not to mention their ability to perform mental gymnastics and not critically analyze because "God" or "their President" says not too. It is a rather short step from "God is infallible" to "this leader whom I like is infallible" as Bob Altemeyer proves.

Long story short, we can't say individual acts done by religious people or institutions are done because of faith because we can't create that experiment to test such an dependent variable. However, we can see that statistically speaking, religion is more detrimental than positive to both societies and individual psyches. Especially when we consider the only benefit of religion to be either socialization or a placebo effect to one's own mortality.

Quite frankly, I think this thread is silly for a forum dedicated to skepticism. Just my opinion, but it would be like if I went to a trans forum and said "hey guys, we don't talk about cis-people (read: Cis-scum) enough, let's talk about all the good things they've done." Just seems counter to the purpose of the forum and a tad trivial.

Also, yeah, I'm an anti-theist. I find it all irrational and bullshit to be honest. I just don't care enough to argue such silly things as "does god exist?" or "what color is Saturday?"

*snip*Also, yeah, I'm an anti-theist. I find it all irrational and bullshit to be honest. I just don't care enough to argue such silly things as "does god exist?" or "what color is Saturday?"

Anti-theists are just as bad as Religious Fundamentalists in my book.

Please give reasoning then, as Queen did for her viewpoint.

Do I really have to explain? Alright, then. They're arrogant, judgmental, bigoted, ignorant, and all around unbearable. They allow their biases to get in the way of objectivity. They treat anybody who doesn't share their horrific viewpoints as mentally deficient. Sound familiar?

*snip*Also, yeah, I'm an anti-theist. I find it all irrational and bullshit to be honest. I just don't care enough to argue such silly things as "does god exist?" or "what color is Saturday?"

Anti-theists are just as bad as Religious Fundamentalists in my book.

Then you have no perspective. Religious fundamentalists are stoning people in the middle east, people burning down abortion clinics, influencing governments. What have anti-theists been doing? ranting on the internet.

You may or may not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah, but just about everybody agrees that he was a real person. A lot of his messages are very good. I just wish more of the flock followed them...

In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.

According to cherished church tradition and popular belief, before the Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the fourth century, early Christians were systematically persecuted by a brutal Roman Empire intent on their destruction. As the story goes, vast numbers of believers were thrown to the lions, tortured, or burned alive because they refused to renounce Christ. These saints, Christianity's inspirational heroes, are still venerated today.

Moss, however, exposes that the "Age of Martyrs" is a fiction—there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. Instead, these stories were pious exaggerations; highly stylized rewritings of Jewish, Greek, and Roman noble death traditions; and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches.

The traditional story of persecution is still taught in Sunday school classes, celebrated in sermons, and employed by church leaders, politicians, and media pundits who insist that Christians were—and always will be—persecuted by a hostile, secular world. While violence against Christians does occur in select parts of the world today, the rhetoric of persecution is both misleading and rooted in an inaccurate history of the early church. Moss urges modern Christians to abandon the conspiratorial assumption that the world is out to get Christians and, rather, embrace the consolation, moral instruction, and spiritual guidance that these martyrdom stories provide.

In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.

According to cherished church tradition and popular belief, before the Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the fourth century, early Christians were systematically persecuted by a brutal Roman Empire intent on their destruction. As the story goes, vast numbers of believers were thrown to the lions, tortured, or burned alive because they refused to renounce Christ. These saints, Christianity's inspirational heroes, are still venerated today.

Moss, however, exposes that the "Age of Martyrs" is a fiction—there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. Instead, these stories were pious exaggerations; highly stylized rewritings of Jewish, Greek, and Roman noble death traditions; and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches.

The traditional story of persecution is still taught in Sunday school classes, celebrated in sermons, and employed by church leaders, politicians, and media pundits who insist that Christians were—and always will be—persecuted by a hostile, secular world. While violence against Christians does occur in select parts of the world today, the rhetoric of persecution is both misleading and rooted in an inaccurate history of the early church. Moss urges modern Christians to abandon the conspiratorial assumption that the world is out to get Christians and, rather, embrace the consolation, moral instruction, and spiritual guidance that these martyrdom stories provide.

I agree with her message, but there is evidence of anti-Christian persecution. True, it might not have been as prevalent as it was made out to be, and there were definitely some periods where Christianity was tolerated, but Christians were persecuted.

In The Myth of Persecution, Candida Moss, a leading expert on early Christianity, reveals how the early church exaggerated, invented, and forged stories of Christian martyrs and how the dangerous legacy of a martyrdom complex is employed today to silence dissent and galvanize a new generation of culture warriors.

According to cherished church tradition and popular belief, before the Emperor Constantine made Christianity legal in the fourth century, early Christians were systematically persecuted by a brutal Roman Empire intent on their destruction. As the story goes, vast numbers of believers were thrown to the lions, tortured, or burned alive because they refused to renounce Christ. These saints, Christianity's inspirational heroes, are still venerated today.

Moss, however, exposes that the "Age of Martyrs" is a fiction—there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians. Instead, these stories were pious exaggerations; highly stylized rewritings of Jewish, Greek, and Roman noble death traditions; and even forgeries designed to marginalize heretics, inspire the faithful, and fund churches.

The traditional story of persecution is still taught in Sunday school classes, celebrated in sermons, and employed by church leaders, politicians, and media pundits who insist that Christians were—and always will be—persecuted by a hostile, secular world. While violence against Christians does occur in select parts of the world today, the rhetoric of persecution is both misleading and rooted in an inaccurate history of the early church. Moss urges modern Christians to abandon the conspiratorial assumption that the world is out to get Christians and, rather, embrace the consolation, moral instruction, and spiritual guidance that these martyrdom stories provide.

I agree with her message, but there is evidence of anti-Christian persecution. True, it might not have been as prevalent as it was made out to be, and there were definitely some periods where Christianity was tolerated, but Christians were persecuted.

I agree with her message, but there is evidence of anti-Christian persecution. True, it might not have been as prevalent as it was made out to be, and there were definitely some periods where Christianity was tolerated, but Christians were persecuted.

Hmm...I can counter that by saying, with personal experience, that religion can just as often lead to depression and even suicide as it does happiness.

For one thing, those groups of friends you supposedly get? If you're too different, you don't fit in, and you feel it.

I was in the youth group at the local pentecostal church. A good strong one, too, with lots of kids. Not a one ever talked to me outside of the barest pretenses of civil conversation. I wasn't athletic. I was home schooled. Those two things meant I had nothing in common with them. I was only friends with another outcast, and he was a manipulative bastard who played with my emotions.

So, despite still considering myself religious and theistic, I don't have fond things to say about religion, and pretending that the bad doesn't exist or is outweighed by the good is disingenuous and actively harmful to people who have been harmed by religion and religious communities.

I know a kid from the same community who committed suicide recently. He was surrounded by people who actively prayed for him and it only made him feel even more alone.

I agree with her message, but there is evidence of anti-Christian persecution. True, it might not have been as prevalent as it was made out to be, and there were definitely some periods where Christianity was tolerated, but Christians were persecuted.

On the positive side, religious faith seems to genuinely lift the spirit, though it's tough to tell whether it's the God part or the community aspect that does the heavy lifting. Friends? A giant yes. A 2002 study conducted at the University of Illinois by Diener and Seligman found that the most salient characteristics shared by the 10% of students with the highest levels of happiness and the fewest signs of depression were their strong ties to friends and family and commitment to spending time with them.

So it might just be the socialization that stems from religious gatherings and not the religion itself.

Has anyone mentioned how it gave metal something to rage against? Cuz that totally justifies the millions who suffered at the hands of religious doctrine.* After all, what's more brutal than suffering at the hands of one's (non-existent) Lord and Master?

Surprised nobody's mentioned Buddhism yet. Now there's a great religion.

Not, quite... Buddhism has a pretty shitty record with LGBT peoples and openly excludes them on the ground that "There is no place for [LGBT people] in Buddhism." (http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/investigation/351847/gay-and-transgender-katoey-struggle-with-buddhism)

I also find it funny how they use their views on reincarnation to justify discrimination...

...god, Dynamic was getting to be too good to be true. One of the more successful trolls, certainly, since he managed to hang around for so long, though he did grate on everybody's nerves by trying to defend religion against any reasonable argument. And demanding people stay on topic when the conversation was just naturally drifting.

But he got cocky there at the end and thought he could seriously tell us that we can't oppose religion because that's bigoted, when some religions are among the most cruelly aggressive bigotted entities ever to grace the planet. Especially the big three. *shakes head*

But he got cocky there at the end and thought he could seriously tell us that we can't oppose religion because that's bigoted, when some religions are among the most cruelly aggressive bigotted entities ever to grace the planet. Especially the big three. *shakes head*

Guess we should have been tipped off since most of the threads Dynamic Dipshit started (especially this one) were nothing but a futile attempt at apologetics. That being said it was really, REALLY funny when he expected people to refrain from expressing opinions that offended his delicate sensibilities.

For what it's worth, I noticed that too, but I don't think they were the same. Dynamic came around last September when Dogmas was still here. Likewise, I can't recall Dogma having odd little sock puppets to echo his opinion when he was debated.

But yeah, I'm in favor of a new rule in which we pre-emptively ban people with the initials DD. </sarcasm>

How about things that local churches have done for their communities? I know mine holds an event each year for single parents. They can bring their kids in and gets free school supplies, hair cuts, food and they even have people who will work on cars for free. Anyone have other stories about their local church's?

Rabbit I used to come here often, I believe the same year that I became a Christian. Needless to say, I probably said some stupid things on here. That has garnered myself a rather strange love/hate relationship with several of the people on this site. I don't know if they are even here anymore or not. Though I'm perfectly fine with just being a no body here, was kinda hoping everyone would have forgotten me by now.

Hello John. Though I would say those times may have been funner for everyone else, it's good to see you all again. One thing I will promise is there won't be as much craziness this time around, lol. Sorry if that is what everyone is looking for, maybe for old time sake I should post a bunch of links haha. (Just kidding)

It must mean the world to him that we all love and accept his imaginary friend. I'm not sure why anyone would be so invested in a bunch of people on the internet who quite frankly think he's a fucking knob-end, but I suppose knob-ends aren't exactly creatures of rationality.

I'm rather curious as to just how much time and effort he's willing to waste on his little crusade.

I know we have already derailed this thread to where it has lost meaning, but this peculiar character reminds me of someone on a forum I had abandoned for a while (because I've grown to hate it and its community) who had a meltdown over his shitty drawing and requested a thread to be locked because of his failure to produce anything remotely good, and of course, that was his undoing. I still wonder to this day how his mind works.

Oh, and the picture was not only of horrendous, infantile quality, it also took lyrics from Coldplay's Viva la Vibe.

I know we have already derailed this thread to where it has lost meaning, but this peculiar character reminds me of someone on a forum I had abandoned for a while (because I've grown to hate it and its community) who had a meltdown over his shitty drawing and requested a thread to be locked because of his failure to produce anything remotely good, and of course, that was his undoing. I still wonder to this day how his mind works.

Oh, and the picture was not only of horrendous, infantile quality, it also took lyrics from Coldplay's Viva la Vibe.

Also, I forgot to warn anyone who is thinking of reading the post and the rest of the thread: That kid even drew porn, and of course the images are censored.

That kid was 14, and he drew awful pornographic images, much of them involving characters from Fairy Oddparents and his OCs based on that show. And not only that, he submitted those images to a site that forbids pornography, even in its Terms of Service: deviantART.